Hacking and erasing years of emails and other documents. Sounds familiar.

They can also determine if copies were made. They could also plant spyware into computer and keep tabs. Communicate with the printer or phones.

If copies are made they will get into the house without leaving a trace or bribe someone else to do so or set up a contractor. Oh you need an electrician. We will have our coincidently leave a flier on you door - 10% discount.

Maybe you need phone or cable service. No sweat.

I can go on. Think it don't happen? Think it is only the government. Think people who were/are in government don't work with organized crime to do this?

Yes. Snowden is right ( I am not referring to whether he is a traitor or not - different issue). Only the naïve think otherwise.

And I am not referring to people on this board. Just too many naïve people in this world.

A must-read for anyone obsessing on the upcoming Hillary candidacy. When you look back at the way the rats fled the ship last time - at the first sign of a credible alternative, the inevitable looks far less inevitable.

Dear Reader (Including those of you who have merely stumbled onto this "news"letter via the filthy Internet rather than receiving it via the space-age pneumatic technology it was intended for),

Say you work for a company that depends on sales ("Um, are there other kinds of businesses?" — The Couch).

Imagine you have a saleswoman who everyone says is the best — THE BEST!! (ideally said in a Kenny Banya voice). Whenever you point out that her sales numbers stink, everyone calls you "sexist" or insists that you just "don't get it."

You respond, "What has she done?"

The universal answer is, "She clocked more miles on sales calls than anybody in company history! She's driven a million miles! One. Million. Miles!"

You ask: "Yeah, but has she, you know, sold anything?"

"Sexist! You don't get it!"

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. When you ask her diehard supporters what she did as secretary of state they start with, "She travelled a million miles! More than any secretary of state."

Put aside the fact that the "more than any secretary of state" part isn't actually true — Condi Rice flew more. When you ask, "Okay, what did she get for it?" you get a blank stare or you get some stuff about championing women's rights. Two people have told me she did good work in Myanmar, but I've never really gotten to the bottom of that. I suppose I could look it up, but at the end of the day we're still talking about Myanmar, which is not the locus of America's most pressing international problems. ("That's right, because Hillary prevented the Myanmarese hegemony," someone at MSNBC just shrieked. "She stopped it cold.") While the Wikipedia page on her tenure doesn't even mention Myanmar, it does mention her championing of better cook stoves in the Third World. That's good. And so is improving the plight of women in various countries where their status ranges between "Slightly More Important than the Village Mule" to "So Incredibly Delicate We Must Keep Them Covered with Burlap Sacks All Day Long Even Though It's Like 115 Degrees in the Shade Today."

But when I take out my handy pocket realpolitik calculator, I just can't make all that add up to much. Particularly when you compare it with our worsening problems in the Middle East, Asia (minus Myanmar!), Europe, Russia, and South America. Those problems are by no means all her fault (nor are they all Obama's fault). But Clinton was the second most important foreign-policy official. If you were, say, the assistant coach of the 1999 Cleveland Browns or the deputy spokesman for Baghdad Bob during the lead-up to the Iraq War, you might — just might — want to highlight other things on your résumé. So it is with Clinton. As our chief diplomat, she presided over a long slide into foreign-policy suckitude. On her watch, America's standing got worse every place it matters (except Myanmar!), despite all of those sales calls.

What Difference It Makes

And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake.

The bureaucracy did it!

Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?

Shut up, they explain.

Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It's also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?

The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren't reporters camped outside Clinton's home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn't close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?

Still, it is obvious that this is bad news for Hillary Clinton. No, she won't be indicted. No, it won't sink her candidacy (if she runs). Yes, it's true: There aren't many Americans who would have otherwise voted for Hillary were it not for Benghazi. But when you have pretty much no real accomplishments to put on the pro side of the scale, and you have a U.S. ambassador murdered in an attack your department could have prevented (and which you subsequently lied about) on the con side of the scale, the scale simply won't balance in your favor. Nor should it.

Another Word about Hillary

I've been saying for a while, if by a while you mean two decades, that Hillary Clinton has never lived up to the hype. She wasn't an effective senator, she was effective at managing her image as a senator. She wasn't an effective manager; HillaryCare was a paper behemoth that never even came up for a vote, but nonetheless helped her party lose control of the U.S. Congress. She isn't a great politician; she's the wife of one. She's not even charismatic. As I wrote last May in USA Today:

Clinton has been in the news for two decades. And even with Obama's glory in full fade, it's worth noting he's still a vastly more compelling personality. Watch January's (journalistically vapid) 60 Minutes interview with both Clinton and Obama. The president comes across as engaged and energetic. Clinton seems like the person who comes up to tell you "there's no eating in the library."

The fascination, the excitement, the thrill of Hillary Clinton is like a psychological potluck dinner for liberal Democrats and the Washington press corps: They bring their own. All she provides is the venue.

And when I hear people talk about how amazing or unstoppable or charismatic she is I feel like Will Ferrell in Zoolander, shouting "Does no one else see this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

Besides the babe factor I just started hearing about this so called "split" in the Democrat party between, guess what, and get this, the "moderate" Clinton camp and the "progressive" Obama camp. The coronation continues:

BTW, she already had the 3am phone call - Benghazi - and failed the test. The right answer was that she hounded and drove the President for more security prior to the attack and for more assets to help during the attack and she didn't do it. She didn't do anything, even make a return phone call (as far as we know). If she did and has held back on telling us to protect the President, that would begin the separation she needs from this President. She also needs to prove she has consistently opposed government botched healthcare as well. Good luck with that.

I have previously predicted: a) She won't run. b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction.

Try to imagine - packed crowds coming out in Iowa and New Hampshire, shrieking like 1963 Beattles fans, exciting for hope and change, like Hyde Park 2008, with thrills running up and down their legs - over a Hillary Rodham Clinton candidacy. I don't see it.

Yesterday RP brought up Spermgate in the context of an interview about Hillary. Error in my opinion.

As far as most people are concerned the issue has been presented to the American people and settled and bringing it up now is going to play poorly.

When hit with the "Rep War on Women" meme, a fair rejoinder could certainly include reference to Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick (wasn't she the one Bill groped against her will in the WH when she came to ask for a job? on the very day that her husband, also a loyal Clintonite, was committing suicide? or something like that?) but in this moment RP displayed a serious tin ear on an issue that is usually a seriously weak link politically for Reps.

No, Kathleen Willey was the one groped. Juanita Broaddrick was the one raped and told: " 'You better get some ice for that.' And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door," she recalled., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/janedoe022099.htm, if you are inclined to believe a Democrat volunteer victim of serial predator. Paula Jones was the one summoned, intimidated, sexually harassed in the most vulgar way, and then tossed out and called white trash by his surrogates.

Hillary was the enabler - all the way through. Interview of Juanita Broaddrick in which she discloses (alleges) having been threatened by Hillary Clinton 2 weeks after (alleged) rape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0 (below). A''champions of women's rights' - right.

Rand Paul was bold and right, in my view, to bring the dark side of the Clinton Presidency back to public awareness. As suggested by Crafty, there is plenty more to the story. I doubt if they want to go there.

"I have previously predicted: a) She won't run. b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction."

Doug,

I will personally pay for an ad in the WSJ the moment this comes true giving you credit for knowing it before anyone else. The Dog Brothers' version of Nostradamus!

Remember how shocked people were that Pres. George H.W. Bush had not seen a grocery scanner in 1992?

Prior to Chappaqua house, the Clintons had barely owned a house, much less a car. Like most, typical middle American couples, they lived in government mansions and were driven by government drivers. It was state troopers who took Bill Clinton to his Gennifer Flowers affair.

On the R side, we keep looking for the right combination of experience. Hillary appears to have that. She was a US Senator. Has foreign policy experience. Worked in the executive branch and was involved in it with her husband.

Recently mentioned was her bald faced lying to the American people as their First Lady, excusing the predator while blaming the opposition. Clever at the moment and proven wrong. For another post, her dismal record as a US Senator. Suffice it to say, they collapsed the US economy. As Secretary of State, we should recall how it began and how it transpired.

It was a reach out to a hated rival that he chose Hillary Clinton and from then on they were such great friends, if you believe that. Pres. Obama chose Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, then he diminished that job by appointing Special Envoys to the key trouble spots in the world, George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East 'peace', and Richard Holbrooke as special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Obama appointed Rashad Hussain, an Indian-American Muslim, as the United States special envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration

In other words, Hillary held the title but the White House wanted to work through others in what they considered key areas. So Hillary traveled and traveled and traveled - to everywhere else. What did she accomplish?

Radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Politico's Maggie Haberman, who had just written a major fluff piece on Hillary Clinton in Oct 2013, to name her accomplishments as Secretary of State:

"There is not a giant list that I think people can point to".

"The biggest achievements was, and you’ve seen this pointed to a lot, was the amount of travel time she logged...", the communications professional struggled to go any further:

Politico’s Maggie Haberman Struggles To List Any Accomplishments At State By Hillary ClintonMonday, October 28, 2013

HH: Joined now by Maggie Haberman of Politico.com, who had a huge story this morning on Hillary Clinton’s potential 2016 run. Maggie, welcome, it’s good to have you on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

MH: Thanks for having me.

HH: Did the reaction to your column flow in today and raise questions about whether or not she’s actually running? Or does everyone assume she’s running?

MH: I’ve heard a mixture of reactions. I think that most people think the preponderance of evidence is that she is running. I had actually been among those who had thought she wasn’t running, and I no longer think that. It’s hard to think it after some of the speeches she’s given recently. I think most people think that there is a chance that she won’t run, that those would be for, you know, mostly personal reasons, or the unforeseen. But that chance seems pretty small at the moment.

HH: Now this is a process story that turns primarily on the argument that the biggest complaint about Clinton in 2008, and I’m quoting now, was that she ran a campaign of entitlement, showing feistiness and emotion only after Obama had surged when it was already too late. Is that what you consider, or what your sources consider to be her biggest potential problem this time around? Or is it her record as secretary of State?

MH: Well, I think that there are two different issues. And I certainly think that her approach to a campaign will be very significant in terms of how she handles it. I think that her record as secretary of State is obviously her most recent, and it is one of the pieces of her curriculum vitae that have been the least looked at, certainly in terms of repeated, in terms of the crux of a campaign and the crucible of a campaign. And I think that it’s relevant. I think that it’s going to come up a lot. I think that people around her are certainly prepared for that, or at least prepared for it to be an issue. How they handle it remains to be seen.

HH: What is her biggest achievement as secretary of State?

MH: I think that the folks around her believe that among the biggest achievements was, and you’ve seen this pointed to a lot, was the amount of travel time she logged. They felt very good about the Chinese dissident, and how the disposition of that case went in 2012. I think that what they, and what most people are prepared for is a lot of questions about the aftermath of Benghazi, and I think there was a 60 Minutes piece about that, that went out yesterday. I think there’s going to be a lot more of that. I think that this is where the fact that most people believe she is running, but she has not set up a team of any kind in any meaningful way, potentially becomes problematic, because if her folks believe that they have something to say in response to that and they’re not, they’re sort of letting time slip away from them.

HH: But pause for a moment with me on the achievement side.

MH: Sure.

HH: Articulate further. What is it that people say is her achievement? That she logged a lot of miles? What, is she running for George Clooney’s role in Up In The Air?

MH: (laughing) That has been certainly one of the focuses that her folks have talked about. They’ve also talked about how she ran a functional effort at State. Look, I think that when you hear from her world about what her accomplishments were, I think that they genuinely believe that she had made progress in terms of how America was perceived. People can agree or disagree with that. I think that that is obviously been coming into question now, and this is again something I think she’s going to have to talk about more. She’s clearly aware of that, but she’s not saying much about it so far, on the NSA issue. It’s very, very difficult for a former Obama administration official to run a sort of smoke and mirrors campaign on foreign policy. She’s going to have a very hard time doing that.

HH: Well, I know all the critiques, because I’m a conservative talk show host. So I know what all the vulnerabilities are.

MH: Right.

HH: I’m just curious as to what they think her strengths are, other than, you know, frequent flyer miles.

MH: Look, they think that she was an effective diplomat. They think that she was good at helping America’s image globally. They have a couple of cases like the case of the Chinese dissident where they think that State played a very effective role. She was among those who was pressing for more action in Syria of a restricted type earlier on than what you saw the Obama administration ultimately do this year. But you know, look, she was not, she certainly was not part of the team that, say, was dealing with Israel. She was not integral in that way, and so I think for some of the issues that are the hottest right now, globally, she was not a key factor in them.\

HH: So a Chinese dissident? That’s it?

MH: Well, I think we will see what they issue as her biggest strength as secretary of State. That has not been a case they’ve been emphasizing so far. You’ve, I’m sure, read the New York Magazine piece, like everybody else, where they talked about again, her time as secretary of State which was largely mechanical, at least in the focus of that piece, and how they thought she had run an effective effort. Everything with Hillary Clinton gets looked at through the prism of how she manages whatever team she’s running, and that’s been where a lot of the focus has been.

HH: Well, it’s very interesting to me, though, as you report early on, they are going to try, Team Clinton is going to try and give you the talking points, which they hope then enter into the bloodstream, and into the circulatory system of Washington, D.C. that is Politico, and then out through the rest of the country. And what I’m hearing you say is they’ve got a Chinese dissident.

MH: No, I think, but I think that when you’ve asked me off the top of my head what are some of the things that her folks have pointed to over the last two years, that has certainly been one of the cases.

HH: Anything else, Maggie?

MH: Yes, there are others, but I’m just not coming up with them at the moment, but, and I’m not trying to avoid the question.

HH: Oh, I know you’re not. I just don’t think there’s anything there. I think, actually, her biggest problem is that there is no there there. She occupied the State Department, and there’s nothing to show for it. I guess there’s this Chinese dissident, but I’m, that’s not, that’s not a name that’s tripping off of my tongue right now. Do you know his name?

MH: I think that, no, at the moment, I actually cannot think of his name. I think that they’re, I think this is going to be an ongoing problem for her. I think that showing sort of a body of work at State is going to be something that she’s going to be pressed to do increasingly, and I think that running sort of a shadow campaign through paid speeches and free speeches over the course of the next year, I think is going to not cut it eventually, not just for conservative critics, but I think on the left. I think she’s going to have a problem.

HH: But doesn’t this sort of underscore the major problem? Here I am, a conservative critic, and I know the critique. And you’re a mainstream reporter, and as far as I know, you have no ideology. You’re one of the people at Politico that I don’t put on the left or the right, you’re just down the middle.

MH: Yeah.

HH: And neither of us can come up with any claim that she has to having succeeded at anything, and they are not able, they didn’t spin you, because they’ve got nothing to spin you with. It’s like the washing machine’s broke.

MH: Well, we’ll see. I mean, I think we need to see what they ultimately come up, to be fair. I think that since she’s not yet running, I think looking at how they present her and present what she did there is an open question.

HH: They’ll come up with something. What I’m getting at is, how long have you been with Politico, five years?

MH: Four years, three and a half years.

HH: Okay, so almost her entire tenure at State, and I’ve been on the air since 2000. And I can’t think of anything, and I’m giving you the floor. If you can come up with anything for her case, lay it out there. Just from the top of mine, it should be front shelf, right?

MH: It certainly is not, there is not a giant list that I think people can point to.

HH: There is no list.

MH: There are a couple, and I think there’s a couple of reasons for that like I said. With the major issue of dealing with Israel, she was not front and center. And she certainly received criticism early on in terms of how the U.S. dealt with Russia. I think these are all going to be issues that she is going to have to address, and I suspect she is going to get asked about them repeatedly, and by many, many outlets.

HH: I mean, it’s just a big, we’re done, but go around the bullpen at Politico and ask them what did she do, and it’s going to be a giant whiteboard, and there’s not going to be anything on it, Maggie.

MH: I like the invocation of whiteboard, though.

HH: It is a whiteboard. Maggie Haberman, great piece today, great process piece, but boy, she’s got problems if after writing it, you don’t have the list at the tip of the tongue. The Clintonistas had better come up with a list, because there’s nothing on it. Really, nothing.

Like the Nixon tapes, the “Hillary Papers” — actually the papers of Hillary’s close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair — tend mainly to confirm what we thought we already knew about a highly public figure who has been in the limelight for decades.

Take, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s reaction to the Lewinsky scandal. Blair wrote this after listening to the First Lady on the subject:

[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it. But, she does say this to put his actions in context. Ever since he took office they’ve been going thru personal tragedy ([the death of] Vince [Foster], her dad, his mom) and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.

In other words, Clinton’s political adversaries — that vast right-wing conspiracy — are partly to blame for his sexual indiscretions. Is anyone surprised that this was her take?

At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.

Yet, as the Washington Free Beacon points out, in an interview with the New York Times when she ran for president in 2008, Clinton said:

You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.

Again, is anyone surprised at the dishonesty and opportunism? This, after all, is the same person Robert Gates heard say she opposed the 2007 Iraq surge because she couldn’t let Barack Obama get to her left on the issue. (Note the double cynicism here: if the surge had failed, Clinton wouldn’t have said that her opposition was other than merits-based, and it’s not clear that the statement to the contrary that Gates heard her make was honest).

The question is do enough people care? If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls. Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar. Not in the penthouse.

I heard Rush for ten minutes today. He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon. He just realized none of this seems to matter.

Doug I hear you.But,The question is do enough people care? If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls. Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar. Not in the penthouse.I heard Rush for ten minutes today. He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon. He just realized none of this seems to matter.

Of course you are right at this moment. I am perhaps the only person who holds Hillary and Barack accountable for the economic fall of 2007-2008. Maybe only me and about two others know President Bill Clinton accomplished NOTHING economically before Newt took congress and he signed on with their Republican agenda, dumping Hillary and HillaryCare. Still, what can they say they accomplished when they took control of congress and the country went to hell? What can they say they accomplished when they took control of foreign policy and the world went to hell? There isn't going to be Hyde Park 2008 level excitement for this known, dismal commodity. I guarantee you, she would rather win in 2016 than be a frontrunner now. I highly doubt she can be both. Her frontrunner status does not match her lack of curb appeal. She has a good resume - as to where she has been, not what she has accomplished. She has top notch name recognition. Yet she is smart enough to know Hillary fatigue is setting in - even when she is totally silent!

"She has a good resume - as to where she has been, not what she has accomplished."

Ah, but the Hillary makeover. The incessant smiling. (She reminds me of the Joker) The reports of her sense of humor! The reports of her being so warm and cuddly! The reports she is so polite and friendly and kind!

I don't know if you saw Joe Schmo Scarborough even touting how nice she was to him. He was "surprised". They were such mortal political enemies and yet when they met she was so kind.

I can't believe my ears.

Like I said with people in our party like this we have no chance.

OTOH Colin Powell pointed out the Republicans "need" him more than the Democrats after, again, highlighting how bigoted an "element" in the party is. Small Colon I have news for you. The Republican party not only doesn't need you we don't want you if this is what you stand for. And BTW why do you still call yourself a Republican? Are you fishing for some sort of deal?

But I digress...

Back to Hillary. She is despised by half the country. Yet she still seems to be able to get over 50% adoration. I just don't understand how people can be so conned so often.

We could re-name this thread Clinton-fatigue right now. That is what will bring them down, not their long, sordid, and often criminal history, true as that is. A Hillary Presidency isn't exciting to anyone now and she won't be more exciting later when she's front and center on the news every hour.

"We could re-name this thread Clinton-fatigue right now. That is what will bring them down, not their long, sordid, and often criminal history, true as that is. A Hillary Presidency isn't exciting to anyone now and she won't be more exciting later when she's front and center on the news every hour."

Doug, your optimism is well received by me - ;

I guess it is my problem but I won't sleep well until they are brought down once and for all. Not until they leave the political stage and leave good decent Americans the hell alone.

And their crooked gang of sick twisted and depraved bullshit artists.

I wish I played golf and could do a round with Rush. He too understands my pain. He carried me through the 90's while having to endure the media love affair with their darling Bill. God help me if she wins and something happens to Rush. Then again I have people on the Forum.

It's no secret that the Leftmedia is desperate for another Democrat in the White House come 2016, or that many outlets want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton. But few have given the unmistakable and direct endorsement that Haim Saban, owner of Univision, gave to Clinton. "Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine," he said. And USA Today reports, "Univision, the country's top Spanish-language network [and fifth largest network overall], has entered into a multiyear deal with Hillary Clinton to promote the health, education and well-being of young children." Out on a limb here, but that seems problematic. One might even think it amounts to in-kind campaign contributions. Yet other media outlets aren't making a peep.

Without knowing that she was being recorded, Hillary Clinton told a recent gatheringthat when [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin "looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that hebelieves is by its very nature part of Mother Russia." Her remarks come perilouslyclose to justifying Putin's behavior.

More of concern, the also echo the very justifications the Munich-era appeaserscited for not responding to Hitler's incursions into Austria and the Sudetenland.

In the 1930s, it was common for advocates of appeasement toward Nazi Germany todescribe Hitler's ambitions to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia as merely an attemptto unite all Germans under one roof. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland, inviolation of the Treaty of Versailles, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin saidhe was just "marching into his own back yard."

In attributing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin the same rationale as Hitler used --the desire to "protect my people," Hillary is echoing the appeaser's rationale formuting their response to Nazi aggression eighty years ago.

Putin does, indeed, cite the concentration of ethnic Russians in all of the formerSoviet Republics to justify his intervention in their affairs. These Russians livethere, largely, because former Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin ordered them to movethere to establish a Russian ethnic presence in these conquered territories and toweaken the centrifugal forces of nationalism.

Hitler's foreign Germans largely lived in other lands as a result of the division ofterritory after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles. His demand that the threemillion ethnic Germans who lived then in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakiaformed the basis for his demands to take over the territory.

In this case, too, Putin is using the justification of taking care of his people toexplain his invasion of the Crimea and his threats of invasion of the Ukraine.

But only Hillary is buying it.

Her comparison of Hitler's transparently fraudulent characterization of hismotivations in the 30s with Putin's today was not to demean Putin's, but rather tooffer it some context and explanation, just one step short of a justification.

Putin could care less about the ethnic Russians in Ukraine just like Hitler did notgive a damn about the ethnic Germans living abroad. Each used them as an excuse forterritorial acquisition and aggression.

It's too bad that Hillary chose to repeat this rationale for aggression in thiscontext.

Her embrace of Putin's rationale -- or at least her citing it without refutation --illustrates her naiveté when it comes to the Russian leader.

The only thing Putin is looking to "reset" is territorial boundary of Russia. Hillary didn't see through him then and she doesn't quite get it now.

Without knowing that she was being recorded, Hillary Clinton told a recent gatheringthat when [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin "looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that hebelieves is by its very nature part of Mother Russia." Her remarks come perilouslyclose to justifying Putin's behavior.

More of concern, the also echo the very justifications the Munich-era appeaserscited for not responding to Hitler's incursions into Austria and the Sudetenland.

In the 1930s, it was common for advocates of appeasement toward Nazi Germany todescribe Hitler's ambitions to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia as merely an attemptto unite all Germans under one roof. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland, inviolation of the Treaty of Versailles, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin saidhe was just "marching into his own back yard."

In attributing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin the same rationale as Hitler used --the desire to "protect my people," Hillary is echoing the appeaser's rationale formuting their response to Nazi aggression eighty years ago.

Putin does, indeed, cite the concentration of ethnic Russians in all of the formerSoviet Republics to justify his intervention in their affairs. These Russians livethere, largely, because former Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin ordered them to movethere to establish a Russian ethnic presence in these conquered territories and toweaken the centrifugal forces of nationalism.

Hitler's foreign Germans largely lived in other lands as a result of the division ofterritory after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles. His demand that the threemillion ethnic Germans who lived then in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakiaformed the basis for his demands to take over the territory.

In this case, too, Putin is using the justification of taking care of his people toexplain his invasion of the Crimea and his threats of invasion of the Ukraine.

But only Hillary is buying it.

Her comparison of Hitler's transparently fraudulent characterization of hismotivations in the 30s with Putin's today was not to demean Putin's, but rather tooffer it some context and explanation, just one step short of a justification.

Putin could care less about the ethnic Russians in Ukraine just like Hitler did notgive a damn about the ethnic Germans living abroad. Each used them as an excuse forterritorial acquisition and aggression.

It's too bad that Hillary chose to repeat this rationale for aggression in thiscontext.

Her embrace of Putin's rationale -- or at least her citing it without refutation --illustrates her naiveté when it comes to the Russian leader.

The only thing Putin is looking to "reset" is territorial boundary of Russia. Hillary didn't see through him then and she doesn't quite get it now.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin is a tough but thin-skinned leader who is squandering his country's potential, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday, a day after she likened his actions on the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.

Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender, warned during her a speech at the University of California, Los Angeles, that "all parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at this delicate time."

Putin has said he was protecting ethnic Russians by moving troops into Crimea.

Clinton said Tuesday at a closed fundraising luncheon in Long Beach that Putin's actions are similar what happened in the Nazi era in Czechoslovakia and Romania.

"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Clinton said, according to the Press-Telegram of Long Beach. "Hitler kept saying, 'They're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.' And that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."

Responding to a question submitted at the UCLA talk, Clinton said she was not making a comparison although Russia's actions were "reminiscent" of claims Germany made in the 1930s, when the Nazis said they needed to protect German minorities in Poland and elsewhere in Europe.

"The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe," she said.

"I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, certainly. But I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before," she said.

Clinton said Putin is trying to "re-Sovietize" the periphery of Russia but is actually squandering the potential of his nation and "threatening instability and even the peace of Europe."

In recent days, some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain have criticized the Obama administration's policy in Ukraine. Clinton echoed President Barack Obama's assessment that Russia's intervention was a violation of international law, and she said she supported the administration's call for Russia "to refrain from the threat or use of force."

Kathryn Stoner, a Russia expert at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, said she considered Clinton's comparison between Putin and the tactics of Nazi-era Germany "a bit of a stretch," in part because Putin "doesn't look like he is intent on spreading across the Ukraine and permanently occupying this area."

In a delicate diplomatic situation "I don't think it's helpful on either side to say things like this, but in these crises it happens," Stoner added****

March 6, 201' VIDEO: Fans at DNC meeting can't name a single Hillary accomplishment

Published by: Dan Calabrese

Not that it matters. We should know by now that stuff like track record and achievement are no longer even ancillary to the matter of choosing a president. They're nowcompletely irrelevant. The election of Obama established that, and his re-election cemented it. Democrats don't expect Obama to get results. They expect him to protect their hold on power.

So if you had asked someone why Obama would be a good president in terms of ability to govern, the response will be a blank stare. What do youmean? The job of a presidential candidate is not to govern. It's to get elected, and then to get re-elected. And this is why it doesn't matter tothese fine folks at the DNC that Hillary Clinton has never accomplished anything either:

The funniest thing about this is that they seem to understand on a certain level that they need totry to defend her as accomplished. That'swhere you get nonsense like how "well-traveled" she is, or the totally meaningless rot about "how well she represented America".

The truth is that most of these folks probably don't even know what the Secretary of State does, let alone have the ability to assess whether shedid it well. I would like to have heard the guy ask them to name her major accomplishments during eight years in the U.S. Senate, since that would surely have elicted the same blank stares and baseless yammeringabout how she "exercised leadership" or whatever.

Hillary's supporters don't back her because they think she's ever done anything to demonstrate she would be a good president. They back herbecause they think she can win, and that means thousands of federal jobs that bring control of lots of money stay in Democrat hands. It really doesn't matter how the nation fares as long as the members of thepolitical class who reside on the left side of the aisle make out OK.

Coming up with a rationale to sell Hillary's candidacy to the general public is theoretically trickier. But if people are only paying attentionas much as they were when they decided to elect and re-elect Obama, maybe it won't be that hard after all.

"She's been everywhere."

"She's traveled so much."

"She's ready."

"She's such a fixture."

"She's tough."

"She's smart."

OK. Stop. How can you possibly offer a rejoinder to a case like this?

Hillary's presumptive candidacy is actually the most audacious test yet of the proposition that the Republican Party is completely inept, andthat is a proposition that history would suggest is sadly unlikely to fail.

Clinton Campaign CorruptionWashington businessman Jeffrey Thompson pleaded guilty Monday to illegal campaign finance activities. Thompson funneled millions of dollars to several DC and federal office holders while getting a kickback in the form of city contracts. Among the recipients of his money was Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 presidential bid deposited over $600,000 of Thompson's "off the books" money. Clinton's aide, Minyon Moore, sought and secured the contributions, though prosecuting her for campaign finance violations now will be difficult given the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors say they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the activity, but let's face it -- the Clintons are pros. And really, what difference does it make anyway?

Clinton Campaign CorruptionWashington businessman Jeffrey Thompson pleaded guilty Monday to illegal campaign finance activities. Thompson funneled millions of dollars to several DC and federal office holders while getting a kickback in the form of city contracts. Among the recipients of his money was Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 presidential bid deposited over $600,000 of Thompson's "off the books" money. Clinton's aide, Minyon Moore, sought and secured the contributions, though prosecuting her for campaign finance violations now will be difficult given the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors say they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the activity, but let's face it -- the Clintons are pros. And really, what difference does it make anyway?

Russian President Vladimir Putin may have a buff physique, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees right through it.

During a Q&A at a marketing summit in California today, Clinton gave a deep read on Putin’s personality, and compared the encounters she’s had with him to those she’s experienced on an elementary school playground.

“I have had my personal experiences with him,” she said, when answering a question about Putin and the recent situation in Crimea. “He’s a fascinating guy. Obviously he is determined.”

Clinton then proceeded to dissect his psyche.

“He is very difficult to read personally,” she said. “He is always looking for advantage. So he will try to put you ill at ease. He will even throw an insult your way. He will look bored and dismissive. He’ll do all of that.”

But Clinton said she was never fazed.

“I have a lot of experience with people acting like that,” she quipped. “Go back to elementary school. I’ve seen all of that, so I’m not impressed by it.”

Clinton made the comments during her first leg of a jam-packed, four-day long speaking tour through the West Coast at Marketo’s Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco.

During her speech and the following Q&A, with Marketo CEO Phil Fernandez, Clinton spoke on issues including technology, immigration, income inequality, and advancement for women in the workplace.

The event wrapped up with the inevitable question about 2016. But when asked if she plans to run for president, Clinton gave no more of an indication that she had made a decision either way. She said that she is still thinking about it, and that she is “going to continue to think about it for a while.”

Even Clinton, however, admitted she’s become an expert at dodging the question.

“I danced around that pretty well, don’t you think?” she remarked with a smile.*****

Hillary knows not to let Putin's "buff" physique fool her. I wonder if he knows not to let her hideous physique fool him. Using HER school yard metaphor she sound like the ugly duckling who can't get the popular athlete so she simply has to insult him.

"...count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances."---------------------------

On MSLSD last night, I think, the noted her great achievement as Secretary of State was the wise move it was to become a Sec of St under Obama. They then showed her popularity in the poles soared while she was Sec of St and are now down again.

So the spin is not what she accomplished other than it improved her popularity - at least that is what I deduced the logic to be.

On MSLSD last night, I think, the noted her great achievement as Secretary of State was the wise move it was to become a Sec of St under Obama. They then showed her popularity in the poles soared while she was Sec of St and are now down again.

So the spin is not what she accomplished other than it improved her popularity - at least that is what I deduced the logic to be.

This kind of slime brings back the gut wrenching memories of the 90s.

Unfortunately we don't have an honest person in the WH now either.

She was willing to cut into wasteful diplomatic security budgets and reset the relationship with Russia.